Chamber and committees

The impact is still to be assessed. I see that it is operating and I have no difficulty with it, but it is not the main issue that we are dealing with just now.

My first answer was clear that where there are opportunities in terms of track access, open access has worked. It has, in many cases, replaced services that have been withdrawn, but it is a different operating model, a different pricing model and has a different position. The UK Government can do that for particular reasons. It is not an area that I have had discussions with the UK Government about, so I am just saying that the jury is out on it, but the way that it has operated to date has helped to use existing track availability.

The other thing to let the committee know is that we obviously have the new climate change plan, which the committee will consider. As I have told you before, we will have to refresh the decarbonisation plan, which we will do, and it will come shortly after the climate change plan because we have to align it with that.

In terms of where we are now, I cannot get into the detail of carriages yet. If there is anything that I can follow up on about where that sits within the 2022 commitment, I will be happy to do so. It sits in our wider plans for Scottish rail. As I said, we are already taking action. Barrhead is electrified and work on East Kilbride is commencing, which will have an interchange and so on. Obviously, there are challenges elsewhere.

Seventy-five per cent of passenger journeys are currently on electric trains, which is good. However, you were talking about numbers of trains. Again, there is an interplay. Since public ownership, there has been a 7 per cent increase in the number of passenger seats. When it comes to 200 journeys operating to full timetable, we acknowledge that we are not currently doing that.

I undertake to ensure that the point is made to the UK ministers and that they are asked whether they can identify how the costs will be met.

On the more substantive point, which is about how we get efficiency out of Network Rail and deliver value for money for the £4.2 billion that the Scottish Government is contributing over CP7, I have already made arrangements to meet the ORR biannually. I will meet its board to ensure that the ORR ensures that Network Rail delivers. The ORR is the regulator to ensure that we get value for money and delivery. That is the substantive mechanism to ensure that Network Rail delivers. I have, if anything, intensified my discussions with the ORR.

If I may, I would like to address Graham Simpson’s point. I look forward to Graham Simpson agreeing with the Scottish Government—and, I assume, voting with the Scottish Government if we bring this to Parliament—that rail services should be fully devolved, which would enable Scottish Governments of any colour to decide what policy on rail they want. I am looking forward to that support.

That assessment helped us to make sure that we have our finances in position and are capable of dealing with the potential procurement. That exercise has been done. Our job now is to let ScotRail get on with the procurement, which is what I am announcing to Parliament will happen.

The clear model, which I will continue to set out, is for rail services to be fully devolved to Scotland. I have already stated that in my meeting with the UK Secretary of State for Transport. The right way forward for Labour would be for it to recognise devolution and that Scotland has been leading in much of the policy direction that it wants to go in. If, following the understanding that we can have devolved operation of transport services, Labour wanted to copy our model for the rest of the UK, it would be a shame and, I think, a retrograde step if it centralised rail. That would be problematic, and I would like to see the full devolution of rail services.

It is early doors and, to be fair to the new incoming UK Government, it is focusing on the immediate legislation that we are discussing. I hope that the atmosphere is favourable and there can be an understanding. I would hope, with Alex Hynes having been seconded into the UK Department for Transport, that there will be an understanding in the centre of the UK Government of Scotland’s position and the opportunities that exist.

I am not sure whether there have been discussions at official level on the likely timescales for the next phase of the establishment of GB rail.

Well, you might say that the UK Conservative Government eroded the option of future UK Governments to have public ownership. That is what it did when it privatised the railways. It is open to any UK Government to overturn that in the future, and that is exactly what the incoming UK Government could do.

As for the sections, I make the important point that I am interpreting the UK legislation; it is not our preference or our policy. We believe that public ownership is the right way forward, which is why we took the steps that we did. We were the first to do so, and I think that, in recognition, the UK Government is now catching up to the position that we have been in.

If it helps, I have found the provision that might reassure you on whether the options would be there if, at some unlikely point, a Government came into Scotland that wanted to do something different. Our understanding—remember that this is what the UK Government has put in—is that the bill amends section 23 of the 1993 act so that the Scottish ministers will have a duty, from time to time,

“to designate services”

that

“ought to be provided under section 30”,

rather than under a franchise agreement. The bill will also amend section 24, which I referred to, so that the Scottish ministers could exempt services from such designation and allow for them to be provided otherwise than under section 30. That is very technical, but we understand that that is what the UK Government is doing.

If services were exempted from designation by order, the duty under section 30 would not apply and the Scottish ministers could make alternative arrangements to secure the provision, which could include a contract award to a private operator. That is our understanding of what the UK Government is doing—as I said, it is leaving the window open. That is not our preference, but the provision is in the legislation.

I am happy to do that, if we can find a technical way of doing so. I am sure that my office is watching this session and that we can find a way of doing that.

The Scottish Government’s policy decision is that our preference is for public ownership—and, similarly, that is the new UK Government’s preference. I think that there were also continuing concerns during the previous UK Government as to whether public ownership was the right way forward.

Different Governments can make decisions at different times about what their policy priority is. The bill aligns with the Scottish Government’s approach, which is why we are saying that we want Parliament to give consent to it.

The decision would be up to a future UK Government. This is a reserved area, so we must ensure that our powers, which we have used to our best ability under devolution, can be protected, and that is what we are doing. As I said in my opening remarks, the current rail service operation is on a more temporary basis; the bill will put it on a more permanent one.

I think that your point is about what would happen if a future Scottish Government took a different decision. I will give my understanding of how the UK Government has framed its position; I might bring in Bill Reeve on the technicalities. There is currently a presumption in favour of franchising, with an exemption for an operator of last resort, which we have used. The bill will flip that, so that the presumption is that there will be public ownership. That does not preclude a private company from operating in the future—there would be a period of designation that would allow the UK Government to decide on that at some point, if it chose to. That is my interpretation of how the UK Government has framed the legislation.

I understand that the legislation would operate with an interplay between sections 24 and 30 of the 1993 act, but the UK Government is doing that in quite a technical way. I would interpret that in layman’s terms as leaving a window open and not closing it completely. Bill Reeve can explain the technicality of what the UK Government is doing and can correct me if I have misrepresented it.

Convener, I also want to say that, as you know, I have the utmost respect for the Parliament, and it has always been open for ministers to make announcements in chamber or in committee.